A special prosecutor has absolute immunity for incidents of nondisclosure and conspiracy tied to the prosecution; such acts cannot be used to establish a conspiracy prior to the beginning of the prosecution.
Prosecutorial directives made by the judge did not strip him of absolute judicial immunity, as they were not binding on the prosecutor.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/06/171667P.pdf
Since 2011. An occasional commonplacing of the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal.
Neither an authoritative statement of the law nor legal advice. Quick work.
Showing posts with label Legal Ethics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Legal Ethics. Show all posts
First Circuit: Cornwell Entertainment, Inc. v. Anchin, Block & Anchin, LLP
FRCP, Statute of Limitations, Choice of Law, Fees, Legal Ethics
Motion for directed verdict arguing lack of fiduciary duty did not adequately preserve argument of qualified privilege related to statements to the government for post-trial motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
Where the state law holds the statute of limitations to be three years for actions seeking damages and six years in an action seeking a remedy in equity, court did not abuse discretion in assigning a three year limit to an action seeking damages for a breach of fiduciary duty.
Doctrine of continuous representation equitably tolls the limit during the transactions at issue, not for the duration of the contractual relationship between the parties.
Reasonable minds could differ as to whether the negotiation for private airplane rental was damaged by the conduct.
Remand, as general verdict makes it impossible to discern theory of initial verdict.
Plaintiff's post-trial motion for fees under law of their state is precluded by the trial's choice of deft's substantive law.
Partner's lateraling to counsel's firm from prosecutor's office investigating parties to the case who was not timely screened does not require counsel to withdraw where the new partner had no actual knowledge of the investigation.
No abuse of discretion in unsealing post-trial testimony of jurors relating to process of verdict, as the public access interest outweighs the interest of confidential deliberations.
Cornwell Entertainment, Inc. v. Anchin, Block & Anchin, LLP
Ninth Circuit: IN RE COMPLAINT OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT
Judicial Ethics, Legal Ethics
Judges' external teaching and speaking on law-related subjects and association with members of the bar did not require recusal in disbarment proceedings against those members of the bar. The challenge to refusal to recuse is merits-based, and must be dismissed.
IN RE COMPLAINT OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT
Eighth Circuit: Critique Services, LLC v. LaToya L. Steward
Bankruptcy, Ethics
Pre-petition motion for equitable disgorgement is maintainable by petitioner so long as the trustee has abandoned the estate.
Insufficient basis to question impartiality of judge who previously headed US Trustee's office that engaged in adversarial process against petitioner LLC.
Court properly construed pro se petition; LLC properly a party; partial payment didn't moot the claim, etc.
Sanctions upheld.
Critique Services, LLC v. LaToya L. Steward
Ninth Circuit: DETRICE GARMON V. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
S1983, Fourth Amendment, Legal Ethics
Absolute prosecutorial immunity is available against claims by third-party witnesses. Presumptively available for actions relating to preparation for trial.
Limited immunity, at most, for misstatements in statements supporting subpoena application.
Subordinates/supervisors protected to same degree.
Error in denial of leave to amend pro se S1983 municipal liability claim.
State immunity statute refers only to malicious prosecution.
DETRICE GARMON V. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
First Circuit: Baker v. Harrington
Legal Ethics, Bankruptcy
Misleading characterization of statute and precedent calculated to delay the proceedings is an impermissible artifice of zeal.
Sanction of having to enroll in a Legal Ethics course upheld.
Baker v. Harrington
Ninth Circuit: Randolph Wolfson v. Colleen Concannon
Elections, First Amendment, En banc
Strict scrutiny for judicial speech restrictions.
Compelling state interest in personal solicitations regulations for judges.
Recusal doesn't solve perception problems.
Everything upheld under strict scrutiny.
Concurrence - justifiable distinctions between sitting and nonsitting judges.
https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2016/01/27/11-17634.pdf
Strict scrutiny for judicial speech restrictions.
Compelling state interest in personal solicitations regulations for judges.
Recusal doesn't solve perception problems.
Everything upheld under strict scrutiny.
Concurrence - justifiable distinctions between sitting and nonsitting judges.
https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2016/01/27/11-17634.pdf
Sixth Circuit: Village Green I, GP v. Federal Nat'l Mortgage Assoc.
Bankruptcy
Bankruptcy plan is not proposed in good faith when it impairs a minor class of creditors consisting of its former legal representation by delaying payment two weeks when there is evidence of present means that make the minor debt insignificant.
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/16a0018p-06.pdf
Bankruptcy plan is not proposed in good faith when it impairs a minor class of creditors consisting of its former legal representation by delaying payment two weeks when there is evidence of present means that make the minor debt insignificant.
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/16a0018p-06.pdf
Seventh Circuit: USA v. Michael Segal
Sentencing/restitution
No error in denial of extension ot purchase insurance policies, as the funds were held up elsewhere in in the settlement by deft's actions.
Although an offer to purchase an asset does not have to be capable of acceptance by simple affirmation in order to be considered commercially acceptable, the deft's right of first refusal gave him an equitable stake in the transaction, and his rights were impaired by having to match a third party's freely revocable offer.
Deft counsel can properly testify as to having seen or not seen the listing of an asset on a list of properties to be seized when the issue turns on a question of inadvertent omission that was not brought to the government's attention.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/D01-21/C:14-3533:J:Posner:aut:T:fnOp:N:1690615:S:0
No error in denial of extension ot purchase insurance policies, as the funds were held up elsewhere in in the settlement by deft's actions.
Although an offer to purchase an asset does not have to be capable of acceptance by simple affirmation in order to be considered commercially acceptable, the deft's right of first refusal gave him an equitable stake in the transaction, and his rights were impaired by having to match a third party's freely revocable offer.
Deft counsel can properly testify as to having seen or not seen the listing of an asset on a list of properties to be seized when the issue turns on a question of inadvertent omission that was not brought to the government's attention.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/D01-21/C:14-3533:J:Posner:aut:T:fnOp:N:1690615:S:0
DC Circuit: National Security Counselors v. CIA
Fees
A bona fide corporation with an identity distinct from that of the natural person who represents it in court is eligible for fee-shifting provisions of FOIA. In house counsel presumptively distinct from corporation, despite close involvement and personal commitment.
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/EBD08628AB46B5D185257F3B0054CBEF/$file/14-5171-1593790.pdf
A bona fide corporation with an identity distinct from that of the natural person who represents it in court is eligible for fee-shifting provisions of FOIA. In house counsel presumptively distinct from corporation, despite close involvement and personal commitment.
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/EBD08628AB46B5D185257F3B0054CBEF/$file/14-5171-1593790.pdf
Seventh Circuit: Julia Egan v. David Pineda
Posner - Civil Practice / Ethics
Six month delay in withdrawing an element of a complaint repudiated by plaintiff in deposition justified 5K sanction to counsel.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2015/D12-23/C:15-2011:J:Posner:aut:T:fnOp:N:1676944:S:0
Six month delay in withdrawing an element of a complaint repudiated by plaintiff in deposition justified 5K sanction to counsel.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2015/D12-23/C:15-2011:J:Posner:aut:T:fnOp:N:1676944:S:0
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)